dhamma follower wrote:And volition is NOT the conditions for those dhammas to arise... When one think that volition can indeed conditions dhammas to arise, isn't it a form of self-identification, of I-making?

However, kamma is intention, and kamma is a means for going beyond samsara. So, we must say that certain volitions can indeed condition wholesome dhammas. For example, harmlessness, non-ill-will, and renunciation come to mind right away...

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

dhamma follower wrote:To be fair, my contention in this thread, has been centered around the understanding of "all dhammas (except Nibann) arise because of conditions". My arguments have been: the idea of formal meditation implies that

1. One thinks that because one has decided to practice (whether concentrating on an object or trying to be aware of whatever appears), wholesomeness and/or wisdom will arise. If not, WHY does one formally meditate? Does'nt that mean that one thinks the decision of practicing (volition) can condition awareness/wholesomeness/wisdom? Does it accord to the truth that any dhamma, including awareness/wholesomeness/wisdom is conditioned ? And volition is NOT the conditions for those dhammas to arise. 2. When one think that volition can indeed conditions dhammas to arise, isn't it a form of self-identification, of I-making?

And this has been responded to repeatedly, but you seems to ignore what is said, repeating the same old Sujinist talking points, but never really engaging the objections to your strawman characterization of the other ways of practicing that differ from yours.

Volition, kamma, is how we choose to act, and how we choose to act matters in terms of Dhamma practice according to the Buddha. And as has been stated to you numerous times, while we cannot will wisdom to arise (and no one is claiming that we try to do that), by using sila, bhavana, and following the rest of the Eightfold Path we can cultivate the conditions that allows wisdom to arise. The followers of Sujin do that by actively choosing to act by listening to the Dhamma and by actively choosing to act by contemplating/reflecting on the Dhamma.

"When one think that volition can indeed conditions dhammas to arise, isn't it a form of self-identification, of I-making?" When you act by choosing to listen to the Dhamma and when you act by choosing to contemplate/reflect on the Dhamma you listened to, are you not conditioning dhammas to arise? Is that not "self-identification, of I-making?" The criticisms you level at practices other than the Sujinist practices are equally valid for the Sujinist practices, and you certainly have not shown otherwise.

Another contention that has been stressed is that "hearing the Dhamma and wise considering" are the conditions for wisdom. They them-selves are also conditioned dhammas and should be understood as such. It is not the doing but it is precisely the correct understanding from hearing the Dhamma which conditions further understanding to grow, from intellectual level to direct level.

Yes, and that is so with the practicing of sila, bhavana, and following the rest of the Eightfold Path, which are all ways of leading to correct understanding that conditioned bases for wisdom to arise. Why would you consider it to be otherwise, other than by totally and completely misunderstanding the practice of sila, bhavana and following the Eightfoild Path?

That should be clear from the very beginning that only causes and effects are at work.

No one here has said otherwise.

If one think that apart from elements which are the causes, and element which are effects, there is another element which actively does the practice, then what is it ? If one sees that causes and effects are doing their own work, creating both samsara and the way out of samsara, one doesn't need to argue that one has to practice sila, samadhi, panna, since it is just a conventional way to describe the processes.

The problem with this is that the Buddha was quite content with using conventional speech to describe his Dhamma and how to realize. You are, it seems, still trying to drive a wedge between the so-called ultimate language and conventional speech, but that has been dealt with at length, and your position is groundless, carring no weight.

From the commentary of to the Anguttara Nikaya:

Herein references to living beings, gods, Brahma, etc., are sammuti-kathā, whereas references to impermanence, suffering, egolessness, the aggregates of the empiric individuality, the spheres and elements of sense perception and mind-cognition, bases of mindfulness, right effort, etc., are paramattha-kathā. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of generally accepted conventions, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on sammuti-kathā. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of ultimate categories, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on paramattha-kathā. To one who is capable of awakening to the truth through sammuti-kathā , the teaching is not presented on the basis of paramattha-kathā, and conversely, to one who is capable of awakening to the truth through paramattha-kathā, the teaching is not presented on the basis of sammuti-kathā. There is this simile on this matter: Just as a teacher of the three Vedas who is capable of explaining their meaning in different dialects might teach his pupils, adopting the particular dialect, which each pupil understands, even so the Buddha preaches the doctrine adopting, according to the suitability of the occasion, either the sammuti- or the paramattha-kathā. It is by taking into consideration the ability of each individual to understand the Four Noble Truths, that the Buddha presents his teaching, either by way of sammuti, or by way of paramattha, or by way of both. Whatever the method adopted the purpose is the same, to show the way to Immortality through the analysis of mental and physical phenomena. AA. Vol. I, pp.54-55 http://kr.buddhism.org/~skb/down/papers/094.pdf

Sammuti-kathā is not inferior to paramattha-kathā.

The last main point of my contention is that all wholesomeness, be it samatha and vipassana, are rooted in understanding. For samatha, its development is based on the understanding of what is wholesome and what it unwholesome (as they presently have arisen), of the ways to arouse wholesomeness based on samatha object. For vipassana,its development is based on the understanding of the characteristics of realities as they arise as anatta, of the distinction between materiality and mentality, and eventually of the tilakkhana.

Fortunately, wholesomeness is something that can be cultivated by the conditioning nature of the choices we make, which is the point of the practices outlined by the Buddha.

I am of the opinion that we (the majority) today have weak level of wisdom, both for samatha and vipassana.

It is your opinion, but fortunately, not the truth.

We are merely at the stage of learning to investigate the different realities as they arise, to develop more understanding of them, of whatever kind and level, by conditions. That understanding can one day, probably in a rather distant future, result in jhanna or in vipassana insight, but no one can predict when and what. Even now, whether understanding will arise while one is going to the market or one is arguing on an internet forum or while taking a shower, no one can know. All realities can be understood at any time and any place, without one's deciding to.

And this is just sad. The Buddha’s teachings are still far more efficacious than this unnecessarily gloomy picture.

Eventhough the development of understanding is an extremely long process, every little understanding now, when it arises, reduces attachment and aversion accordingly. Everyone can consider and verify for one-self.

By the practice of sila, bhavana and the rest of the Eightfold Path.

I think although what I have said in this thread can be unpleasant for many, it can be beneficial for some others, just as it has been beneficial to me to have heard that, as well as to many of my friends.

It is unpleasant, not because it is challenging, but because it is a sad version of the Buddha’s teachings that you are advocating. Fortunately, there are other more efficacious understandings to the Buddha’s Dhamma than what you are advocating here.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

dhamma follower wrote:1. One thinks that because one has decided to practice (whether concentrating on an object or trying to be aware of whatever appears), wholesomeness and/or wisdom will arise....

Same can be said "read ADL" and eventually wholesomeness (sati + paññā) will arise.

dhamma follower wrote:2. When one think that volition can indeed conditions dhammas to arise, isn't it a form of self-identification, of I-making?

If one is dropped into a deep lake, one needs to swim so not to drown. Of course swimming is fully conditioned, one of the conditions being the application of wise effort RIGHT NOW.

dhamma follower wrote:Another contention that has been stressed is that "hearing the Dhamma and wise considering" are the conditions for wisdom.

Just like learning swimming styles, same is here. You learn proper things to do and to study, and then you apply them. Or, get drown in lake of kilesas.

dhamma follower wrote: That should be clear from the very beginning that only causes and effects are at work.

Right. If a person is droped into a deep lake, one can't simply do nothing until "causes and conditions" rescue one. Swimming IS one of those causes and conditions.

dhamma follower wrote:I am of the opinion that we (the majority) today have weak level of wisdom, both for samatha and vipassana.

Great. Why ignore what the suttas, Abhidhamma, Vinaya, and even Visuddhimagga say about practice and believe different information from few modern lay person who know better?

If majority of people mistakenly believe in "formal practice", why didn't the Buddha refute it left-and-right on every occasion? Why did he ask people to go into the forest, cave, empty building, etc, etc, and meditate?

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

retrofuturist wrote: i do not even consider Ven.Buddhaghosa to be a stream-entrant, despite his obvious enthusiasm for matters pertaining to the Dhamma. Much of the "thicket of views" he falls into seems to pertain to his (and more broadly, early Theravada's) obsession with refuting the puggalavadins. Sujinism seems like the logical conclusion and ultimate expression of this historical obsession with the puggala.

Metta,Retro.

no problem. i think though that you should recognize that monks, adding up to a concensus of milliions, since and before Buddhaghosa have asserted the same things, and revere the works of Buddhaghosa

so when you say that "However, this matter is not new, and such questions have now and previously been asked and answered." i wonder if you being realistic in expecting followers of Theravada to concede that you have the final word and that Buddhaghosa can be dismissed.

It certainly looks like you have not accurately represented Buddhaghosa in the "There is no doer of a deed" snippet you quoted, and certainly Buddhaghosa advocates the practice of sila, bhavana, and the rest of the Eightfold Path in away that you reject. So, it seems that you really cannot lay claim to Buddhaghosa.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

robertk wrote:i wonder if you being realistic in expecting followers of Theravada to concede that you have the final word and that Buddhaghosa can be dismissed.

I wasn't seeking some objective consensus ~ simply articulating my position on the matter in response to your question. People may believe as they wish...

SN 20.7 wrote:"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

The followers of Sujin do that by actively choosing to act by listening to the Dhamma and by actively choosing to act by contemplating/reflecting on the Dhamma.

Not the act of choosing it-self, but the understanding that choosing now happens by conditions, which can eventually lead to some little understanding. One might listen for years without any correct understanding.

following the rest of the Eightfold Path, which are all ways of leading to correct understanding

You say that Eightfold Path means formal practice, right? And lt leads to correct understanding later. But I say EFP doesn't mean formal practice, but it arises with any moment of correct understanding, starting now, which leads to the supermundane EFP later. No correct understanding now, no EFP.

You are, it seems, still trying to drive a wedge between the so-called ultimate language and conventional speech

As I've said: not a matter of language but of understanding. If there's understanding of the ultimate, no problem to use conventional. But when the ultimate is stated, and someone tries to show the conventional as an counter arguments to the ultimate, it means that he doesn't see that both are the same.

dhamma follower wrote:And volition is NOT the conditions for those dhammas to arise... When one think that volition can indeed conditions dhammas to arise, isn't it a form of self-identification, of I-making?

However, kamma is intention, and kamma is a means for going beyond samsara. So, we must say that certain volitions can indeed condition wholesome dhammas. For example, harmlessness, non-ill-will, and renunciation come to mind right away...

Greeting Daverupa,

Let’s talk about kamma.

1. Kammas are of two kinds: wholesome and unwholesome. The wholesome is again of two kinds: with understanding, and without understanding. Understanding is of two kinds, again: mundane understanding, and understanding of the four Noble truth. Do you agree that only the last kind of kamma is the one which can lead to the beyond ?2. Kammas are also of three kinds: Bodily, verbal and mental. Of the three, the mental kamma is the leader. Bodily and verbal are merely outward expression of the mental, do you agree? (Upali sutta)

From (1) and (2), we get the kind of kamma which can lead to the beyond: the moments of right understanding. When one hears the word kamma, one thinks of action, doing something, but when considering more carefully, it is not so.

You think that because volition is kamma is the means to go beyond, it proves that volition can condition wholesomeness. However, volition arises with all kinds of citta, wholesome as well as unwholesome. The causes of the wholesome mental factors which arise with volition to make the citta wholesome kamma have nothing to do with volition, they each has their own conditions to arise, for example adosa (non-hate) has "seeing the good sides of others” as condition for its arising, right effort has “the sense of urgency” as conditions etc….These conditions are them-selves also dhammas which have their own conditions to arise. Like now, can you say let’s the sense of urgency arise in me, and then it will arise? But when by conditions ( thanks to hearing the Dhamma and reflecting wisely), it does arise at a non-predicted moment, it conditions right effort to perform its own functions. At that moment, there’s kamma which leads to the beyond.

Same can be said "read ADL" and eventually wholesomeness (sati + paññā) will arise.

Buddha never said "doing something is the cause of wisdom", he said "hearing the Dhamma is". But without right consideration, no understanding. It is beyond anyone's control whether there's right consideration or not.

If one is dropped into a deep lake, one needs to swim so not to drown. Of course swimming is fully conditioned, one of the conditions being the application of wise effort RIGHT NOW.

No, swimming is conditioned by right and thourough understanding of anattaness. A sutta for you:

Like a weak man come to the bank of river Ganges, full to the brim with over flowing banks would say I will cut the stream of the river, with my hands and safely cross the river. It is not posssible that he would cross the river. In the same manner, when the Teaching is given for the cessation of the view of self, the mind does not spring, delight and settle to be released. It should be known as the nature of that weak man. Like a strong man come to the bank of river Ganges, full to the brim with over flowing banks would say I will cut the stream of the river, with my hands and safely cross the river. It is posssible that he would cross the river. In the same manner, Ananda, when the Teaching is given for the cessation of the view of self, the mind springs, delights and settles to be released, it should be known as the nature of the strong man.. .

Great. Why ignore what the suttas, Abhidhamma, Vinaya, and even Visuddhimagga say about practice and believe different information from few modern lay person who know better?

Obviously we have different understandings of the texts, Alex. If it is clearly understood under the light of causes and conditions, of anattaness, you will not see in it "formal practice", just causes and conditions. As for lay person, it is not a criteria of inferiority when it comes to understanding the Dhamma.

dhamma follower wrote:It is beyond anyone's control whether there's right consideration or not.

dhamma follower wrote:These conditions are them-selves also dhammas which have their own conditions to arise. Like now, can you say let’s the sense of urgency arise in me, and then it will arise? But when by conditions ( thanks to hearing the Dhamma and reflecting wisely), it does arise at a non-predicted moment, it conditions right effort to perform its own functions. At that moment, there’s kamma which leads to the beyond.

fa·tal·ism /ˈfātlˌizəm/Noun1. The belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.2. A submissive attitude to events, resulting from such a belief.

Dhammafollower... what do you make of the following statement, in particular the bolded portion?

There is no shortening or lengthening, no accelerating or decelerating. Just as a ball of string, when thrown, comes to its end simply by unwinding, in the same way, having transmigrated and wandered on, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain.'

The followers of Sujin do that by actively choosing to act by listening to the Dhamma and by actively choosing to act by contemplating/reflecting on the Dhamma.

Not the act of choosing it-self, but the understanding that choosing now happens by conditions, which can eventually lead to some little understanding. One might listen for years without any correct understanding.

That is why the Buddha advocated more than listening. Sadly, you are ignoring much of the Buddha's teachings.

following the rest of the Eightfold Path, which are all ways of leading to correct understanding

You say that Eightfold Path means formal practice, right? And lt leads to correct understanding later. But I say EFP doesn't mean formal practice, but it arises with any moment of correct understanding, starting now, which leads to the supermundane EFP later. No correct understanding now, no EFP.

I never said that the Eightfold Path means just "formal practice." The Eightfold Path is how one live one's life, from one moment to the next, from one choice to the next, and the core choice is one of paying attention.

You are, it seems, still trying to drive a wedge between the so-called ultimate language and conventional speech

As I've said: not a matter of language but of understanding. If there's understanding of the ultimate, no problem to use conventional. But when the ultimate is stated, and someone tries to show the conventional as an counter arguments to the ultimate, it means that he doesn't see that both are the same.

It would seem that you do not quite have a handle on this. The problem is, is with your use "ultimate" language itself. It seems that the Sujinist version of "ultimate" language, as expressed by you, roberrtk, and pt1 is seriously flawed as a way of expressing the Dhamma.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

dhamma follower wrote:Like now, can you say let’s the sense of urgency arise in me, and then it will arise? But when by conditions ( thanks to hearing the Dhamma and reflecting wisely), it does arise at a non-predicted moment, it conditions right effort to perform its own functions. At that moment, there’s kamma which leads to the beyond.

You are embarrassing yourself here. One can cultivate, as the Buddha clearly advocated, practices that gives rise to the Dhamma sense of urgency. This is not just a matter of "listening," it is definitely a matter of doing, of willfully acting::

Once the Blessed One was staying in the Brick Hall at Naadikaa. There he addressed the monks as follows:

"Mindfulness of death, monks, if cultivated and frequently practiced, brings great fruit, great benefit; it merges in the Deathless, ends in the Deathless. And how, monks, is it cultivated (in that way)?

"When, monks, the day fades and night sets in... or when the night is spent and the day breaks, a monk should reflect thus: 'Many might be the causes of my death: a snake or a scorpion or a centipede may sting me, and through that I may die. This would be a hindrance to me.[16] Or I may stumble and have a fall; or the food I ate may cause illness; or bile, phlegm, or piercing (pains of body-) gases may upset my health; humans or non-humans may assault me; and through this I may die. That would be a hindrance to me.'

"Then that monk should further reflect thus: 'Do I harbor in myself any evil and unwholesome qualities, which are still undiscarded and would be a hindrance to me if I were to die tonight or during the day?'

"If, on reflection, that monk realizes that those evil, unwholesome qualities are still in him, then he should, with strong resolve, apply all his effort, vigor and exertion, (together with) mindfulness and clear comprehension, for the sake of discarding them.

"Just as a man whose turban or hair is on fire will, to extinguish the fire, with strong resolve, apply all his effort, vigor and exertion, (together with) mindfulness and clear comprehension; even so should that monk resolutely apply all his effort... for discarding his evil and unwholesome qualities.

"But if, on reflection, that monk realizes that there are in him no such evil and unwholesome qualities that might be a hindrance to him if he were to die tonight or during the day, then he may well feel gladness and joy. By day and night he should train himself in everything that is beneficial.

"If, monks, mindfulness of death is cultivated in that way, and is frequently practiced, it will bring great fruit, great benefit, and it will merge in the Deathless, will end in the Deathless."

16.Comy.: "When dying as an unliberated worldling (puthujjana), it would be a hindrance either to a heavenly rebirth or to attaining the paths of emancipation."

Same can be said "read ADL" and eventually wholesomeness (sati + paññā) will arise.

Buddha never said "doing something is the cause of wisdom", he said "hearing the Dhamma is". But without right consideration, no understanding. It is beyond anyone's control whether there's right consideration or not.

Now you have stepped outside the Dhamma. If this is what Sujin teaches, it is rather shocking.

If one is dropped into a deep lake, one needs to swim so not to drown. Of course swimming is fully conditioned, one of the conditions being the application of wise effort RIGHT NOW.

No, swimming is conditioned by right and thourough understanding of anattaness. A sutta for you:

Like a weak man come to the bank of river Ganges, full to the brim with over flowing banks would say I will cut the stream of the river, with my hands and safely cross the river. It is not posssible that he would cross the river. In the same manner, when the Teaching is given for the cessation of the view of self, the mind does not spring, delight and settle to be released. It should be known as the nature of that weak man. Like a strong man come to the bank of river Ganges, full to the brim with over flowing banks would say I will cut the stream of the river, with my hands and safely cross the river. It is posssible that he would cross the river. In the same manner, Ananda, when the Teaching is given for the cessation of the view of self, the mind springs, delights and settles to be released, it should be known as the nature of the strong man.. .

And here you making the same error that robertk does of misrepresenting the Dhamma by taking a quotation out of context. What the text goes on to say is:

Ananda, what is the path and method, to dispel the lower bonds of the sensual world? Ananda, the bhikkhu secluding the mind thoroughly, by dispelling things of demerit, removes all bodily transgressions that bring remorse. Then secluding the mind, from sensual thoughts and thoughts of demerit, with thoughts and discursive thoughts and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion abides in the first jhana. Established in it he reflects all things that matter, all feelings, all perceptive things, all intentions, all conscious signs are impermanent, unpleasant, an illness, an abscess, an arrow, a misfortune, an ailment, foreign, destined for destruction, is void, and devoid of a self. Then he turns the mind to the deathless element: This is peaceful, this is exalted, such as the appeasement of all determinations, the giving up of all endearments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation and extinction (* 1). With that mind he comes to the destruction of desires. If he does not destroy desires on account of greed and interest for those same things. He arises spontaneously, with the destruction of the five lower bonds, of the sensual world, not to proceed. Ananda, this too is a method for overcoming the five lower bonds of the sensual world..

Again, Ananda, the bhikkhu overcoming thoughts and thought processes, the mind internally appeased, in one point, without thoughts and thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of concentration, abides in the second jhana--- in the third jhana—in the fourth jhana. Attained to it, he reflects all things that matter, all feelings, all perceptive things, all intentions, all conscious signs are impermanent, unpleasant, an illness, an abscess, an arrow, a misfortune, an ailment, foreign, destined for destruction, is void, and devoid of a self. Then he turns the mind to the deathless element.:This is peaceful, this is exalted, such as the appeasement of all determinations, the giving up of all endearments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation and extinction. With that mind he comes to the destruction of desires. If he does not destroy desires on account of greed and interest for those same things he arises spontaneously, with the destruction of the five lower bonds of the sensual world, not to proceed. Ananda, this too is a method for overcoming the five lower bonds for the sensual world.

Again, Ananda, the bhikkhu overcoming all perceptions of matter and anger, not attending to various perceptions, with space is boundless abides in the sphere of space. Attained to it, he reflects all things that matter, all feelings, all perceptive things, all intentions, all conscious signs, are impermanent, unpleasant, an illness, an abscess, an arrow, a misfortune, an ailment, foreign, destined for destruction, void, devoid of a self.. Then he turns the mind to the deathless element: This is peaceful, this is exalted, such as the appeasement of all determinations, the giving up of all endearments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation and extinction..With that mind he comes to the destruction of desires.If he does not come to the destruction of desires on account of greed and interest for those same things, he arises spontaneously with the destruction of the five lower bonds not to proceed. Ananda, this too is a method for overcoming the five lower bonds for the sensual world.

Again, Ananda, the bhikkhu overcoming all peceptions of space, with consciousness is boundless, abides in the sphere of consciousness.--overcoming all the sphere of conscioussness, with there is nothing, abides in the sphere of no-thingness Attained to it he reflects all things that matter, all feelings, all perceptive things, all intentions, all conscious signs::are impermanent, unpleasant, an illness, an abscess, an arrow, a misfortune, an ailment, foreign, destined for destruction, void, devoid of a self. Then he turns the mind to the deathless element: This is peaceful, this is exalted, such as the appeasement of all determinations, the giving up of all endearments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation and extinction. With that mind he comes to the destruction of desires. If he does not destroy desires on account of greed and interest for those same things, he arises spontaneously with the destruction of the five lower bonds not to proceed. Ananda, this too is a method for the dispelling of the five lower bonds for the sensual world.

Venerable sir, when this is the path and the method for the destruction of the five lower bonds for the sensual world, why does a certain bhikkhu talk of a release of mind and a release through wisdom? Ananda, that is the difference in the maturity of the mental faculties.

The Blessed One said that and venerable Ananda delighted in the words of the Blessed One.

Very clearly the Buddha is advocating doing, of acting, as a way of cultivating insight.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

Dan74 wrote:Do we really need to use terms like "Sujinists" (I know Tilt's already used it) but I just hope that we don't make this a habit, but respect each other as fellow Dhamma practitioners.

It just sounds like a dismissive term, kind of like some folks have been dismissive of what is termed "formal practice."

Some folks? You mean the Sujinists who are dismissive of formal practice, characterizing it as attachment to rules and ritual based in lobha? Is my using "Sujinist" disrespectful? I don't think so. It simply identifies of whom I am speaking, followers of Sujin, the person who is teaching these extreme beliefs to her followers. See: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... jin#p35840

As for being "dismissive," see the very opening line of the OP of this thread which is a nasty attack on the meditative traditions, particularly vipassana traditions (but as the thread continues, we see it certainly applies to all the meditative Theravadin traditions): "But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focusing on an approximation of the here and now. This is merely concentration, without any sati or panna, and is a wrong path."

tiltbillings wrote:As for being "dismissive," see the very opening line of the OP of this thread which is a nasty attack on the meditative traditions, particularly vipassana traditions (but as the thread continues, we see it certainly applies to all the meditative Theravadin traditions): "But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focusing on an approximation of the here and now. This is merely concentration, without any sati or panna, and is a wrong path."

Since this is still going -

tiltbillings wrote:

robertk wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:robertk wrote:But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focussing on an approximation of the here and now. This is merely concentration, without any sati or panna, and is a wrong path.

Several definitions of mindfulness have been used in modern psychology. According to various prominent psychological definitions, Mindfulness refers to a psychological quality that involvesbringing one’s complete attention to the present experience on a moment-to-moment basis,[8]or involvespaying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally,[8]or involvesa kind of nonelaborative, nonjudgmental, present-centered awareness in which each thought, feeling, or sensation that arises in the attentional field is acknowledged and accepted as it is.[9]Bishop, Lau, and colleagues (2004)[10] offered a two-component model of mindfulness:The first component [of mindfulness] involves the self-regulation of attention so that it is maintained on immediate experience, thereby allowing for increased recognition of mental events in the present moment. The second component involves adopting a particular orientation toward one’s experiences in the present moment, an orientation that is characterized by curiosity, openness, and acceptance.[10]:232

Most modern Buddhists I've met think this is mindfulness - especially that element of being accepting and non-judgmental.

In Mindfulness Defined, Thanissaro Bhikkhu discusses the problems around this term and how it is sometimes used.

I agree that what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focusing on an approximation of the here and now, it is merely concentration.

binocular wrote:I agree that what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focusing on an approximation of the here and now, it is merely concentration.

You have, however, not shown that to be the case, nor has robertk is his attempt at dismissing any sort of meditation practice.

I think binocular's point is fair enough... in common parlance, that's precisely how mindfulness is understood.

The link above wrote:The first component [of mindfulness] involves the self-regulation of attention so that it is maintained on immediate experience, thereby allowing for increased recognition of mental events in the present moment. The second component involves adopting a particular orientation toward one’s experiences in the present moment, an orientation that is characterized by curiosity, openness, and acceptance

My friend Louise (who incidentally has done a Goenka retreat in the past) provided me a nearly identical understanding of mindfulness just last week, which it seems is derived from CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy). She was very surprised (yet not unimpressed) when I mentioned about tying mindfulness back to Right View and Right Effort etc. as part of the broader application of the N8P... as she saw it very much as per the common parlance understanding that Robert and Binocular have described.

Therefore there's no necessity to take such a statement in itself as an "attempt at dismissing any sort of meditation practice".

Several definitions of mindfulness have been used in modern psychology. According to various prominent psychological definitions, Mindfulness refers to a psychological quality that involvesbringing one’s complete attention to the present experience on a moment-to-moment basis,[8]or involvespaying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally,[8]or involvesa kind of nonelaborative, nonjudgmental, present-centered awareness in which each thought, feeling, or sensation that arises in the attentional field is acknowledged and accepted as it is.[9]Bishop, Lau, and colleagues (2004)[10] offered a two-component model of mindfulness:The first component [of mindfulness] involves the self-regulation of attention so that it is maintained on immediate experience, thereby allowing for increased recognition of mental events in the present moment. The second component involves adopting a particular orientation toward one’s experiences in the present moment, an orientation that is characterized by curiosity, openness, and acceptance.[10]:232

Most modern Buddhists I've met think this is mindfulness - especially that element of being accepting and non-judgmental.

In Mindfulness Defined, Thanissaro Bhikkhu discusses the problems around this term and how it is sometimes used.

I agree that what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focusing on an approximation of the here and now, it is merely concentration.

I don't see where a single one of the descriptions Robert used are justified, even in relation to the (yes, probably incomplete) description of mindfulness above. Namely:1) tedious2) approximation of the here and now3) merely concentration4) without any sati5) without any panna6) wrong path.

The only thing which is reasonably justified is that is how some people understand mindfulness. How "common" it is, is debatable. Majority? Strong minority? Who knows.

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

retrofuturist wrote:I think binocular's point is fair enough... in common parlance, that's precisely how mindfulness is understood.

I am not so much worried about the "common paralance" understanding of mindfulness. That has been debated in a number of different threads. It is, however, the nasty robertk characterization of "tedious focusing" and what follows that that binocular echos: "I agree that what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focusing on an approximation of the here and now, it is merely concentration." Robertk's OP statement: "But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focussing on an approximation of the here and now. This is merely concentration, without any sati or panna, and is a wrong path." It is an ungrounded assertion and a wholesale dismissal of a path of practice.

tiltbillings wrote:Robertk's OP statement: "But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focussing on an approximation of the here and now. This is merely concentration, without any sati or panna, and is a wrong path." It is an ungrounded assertion and a wholesale dismissal of a path of practice.

Maybe. Or it could just be saying that CBT (and any retreat-based equivalents) are not Dhamma, because they are not founded in the forerunner of Right View.

You can see back here - viewtopic.php?f=19&t=15935&start=20#p227898 - that it was never intended as a "wholesale dismissal" of Mahasi practice. In that topic it is made quite clear why he says mindfulness cannot be "tedious"... namely because it is kusala.

tiltbillings wrote:Robertk's OP statement: "But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focussing on an approximation of the here and now. This is merely concentration, without any sati or panna, and is a wrong path." It is an ungrounded assertion and a wholesale dismissal of a path of practice.

Maybe. Or it could just be saying that CBT (and any retreat-based equivalents) are not Dhamma, because they are not founded in the forerunner of Right View.

Metta,Retro.

I don't give a rat's tookus about CBT. No one, until you who just brought it up, has been talking about CBT. And binocular's "Western Psychology," which has not been a topic of discussuion in this thread until now, is also something that is beside the point. CBT and Western Psychology are a smelly red fish to the main topic. I have been quite clearly talking about practice in the context of the Eightfold Path, as has been pretty much everyone else who has been disagreeing with robertk's wholesale dismissal of meditation practice.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12